Congress declares opposition to UN takeover of the Internet

House votes 397-0 against, even though UN lacks power for unilateral changes.

Congress certainly can't agree on much, but we've now discovered what it will unite for: opposing a United Nations "takeover" of the Internet.

On Wednesday, the House of Representatives voted unanimously (397-0) against the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and the United Nations’ efforts to push “increased government control over the Internet" that would "undermine the current multistake-holder model that has enabled the Internet to flourish and under which the private sector.” The same resolution passed the Senate back in September, also by unanimous vote. (Even their European counterparts passed a similar resolution in November.)

So why now? This week is the December 2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai (or, WCIT-12, for short). At the conference, a new set of International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs) are being negotiated—regulations that haven’t been updated since 1988.

As we've noted before, the United Nations can't just unilaterally obtain control of the Internet even if it wanted to. But don’t take our word for it. Take it from the guy who would know, Secretary General Hamadoun Touré of the ITU. Back in June, he put it this way: “I do not see how WCIT could set barriers to the free flow of information.”

Sure, many countries at WCIT-12 want to push their own agenda. Some want to wrestle away the United States' de facto control over the Internet (in the form of the US-based ICANN). And authoritarian states want to further legitimize their already existing censorship and surveillance regimes. After all, as we reported earlier this year, Touré rightly pointed out the ITU recognizes all of its member states' rights to impose various types of restrictions on freedom of speech. The list includes prohibitions on copyright violations, pornography, defamation, and political speech among others.

“Such restrictions are permitted by article 34 of the ITU’s Constitution, which provides that Member States reserve the right to cut off, in accordance with their national law, any private telecommunications which may appear dangerous to the security of the State, or contrary to its laws, to public order, or to decency,” he added.

Another issue getting a lot of attention is that telcos want more money by instituting a "sender-pays" regime that would force online service providers, many of them based in the United States, to pay more to deliver their content to the world's consumers. Fortunately for all of us that know and love the Internet the way it is, the UN can't unilaterally impose changes to that setup either.

73 Reader Comments

In short, countries are free to impose essentially whatever policy they want on their own domestic Internet—and already they do with impunity. (As always, we’re looking at you, North Korea, China, Russia, Iran, and most recently, Syria.)

There was some other country that did that too...think it started with a "U" and ended in "nited States."

In short, countries are free to impose essentially whatever policy they want on their own domestic Internet—and already they do with impunity. (As always, we’re looking at you, North Korea, China, Russia, Iran, and most recently, Syria.)

There was some other country that did that too...think it started with a "U" and ended in "nited States."

I realize people are bitching that website that promote online piracy, but that censorship is nothing compared to many of the more restrictive countries. I've know a few students from China that didn't even know what happen at the Tiananmen Square Protests in 1989, that is real censorship of the internet.

"Some want to wrestle away the United States' de facto control over the Internet"

I really get irritated with the level of arrogance and sense of entitlement from certain parts of the planet.

Gee, none of these other countries complained when the United States government and various private enterprises in the U.S. were spending billions of dollars and man-hours for development of all the technologies, hardware, communication protocols and infrastructure to support the Internet, but now that it's up and running and they can piggyback off it, they want to argue about who should control it. It's under U.S. de facto control because the U.S. more or less brought the Internet into existence.

If any other country wants control, they can create their own Internet. Nothing is stopping them. There's no need to exert control over what exists now.

"Some want to wrestle away the United States' de facto control over the Internet"

I really get irritated with the level of arrogance and sense of entitlement from certain parts of the planet.

Gee, none of these other countries complained when the United States government and various private enterprises in the U.S. were spending billions of dollars and man-hours for development of all the technologies, hardware, communication protocols and infrastructure to support the Internet, but now that it's up and running and they can piggyback off it, they want to argue about who should control it. It's under U.S. de facto control because the U.S. more or less brought the Internet into existence.

If any other country wants control, they can create their own Internet. Nothing is stopping them. There's no need to exert control over what exists now.

That is true. Plus now that we've pretty much figured out how to do it other countries would have to spend far less time and resources on it. Personally I think the US and the US companies responsible for developing much of the internet technology should reap the benefits from the investments they made.

"Some want to wrestle away the United States' de facto control over the Internet"

I really get irritated with the level of arrogance and sense of entitlement from certain parts of the planet.

Gee, none of these other countries complained when the United States government and various private enterprises in the U.S. were spending billions of dollars and man-hours for development of all the technologies, hardware, communication protocols and infrastructure to support the Internet, but now that it's up and running and they can piggyback off it, they want to argue about who should control it. It's under U.S. de facto control because the U.S. more or less brought the Internet into existence.

If any other country wants control, they can create their own Internet. Nothing is stopping them. There's no need to exert control over what exists now.

That is true. Plus now that we've pretty much figured out how to do it other countries would have to spend far less time and resources on it. Personally I think the US and the US companies responsible for developing much of the internet technology should reap the benefits from the investments they made.

Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Google.Nope, the US haven't reaped the benefits of the Internet, better give them more power.

"Some want to wrestle away the United States' de facto control over the Internet"

I really get irritated with the level of arrogance and sense of entitlement from certain parts of the planet.

Gee, none of these other countries complained when the United States government and various private enterprises in the U.S. were spending billions of dollars and man-hours for development of all the technologies, hardware, communication protocols and infrastructure to support the Internet, but now that it's up and running and they can piggyback off it, they want to argue about who should control it. It's under U.S. de facto control because the U.S. more or less brought the Internet into existence.

If any other country wants control, they can create their own Internet. Nothing is stopping them. There's no need to exert control over what exists now.

Tell that to your very own politicians who attempt and succeed at exerting control over sovereign nations via their embassies and other methods. Like for example ACTA.

If any other country wants control, they can create their own Internet. Nothing is stopping them. There's no need to exert control over what exists now.

What's the point then? The Internet is a public good, there is no competition involved(not the same thing as ISP). It's a utility, nobody in their right mind suggest we build another road network to compete with the existing one. It's ridiculous.

"Some want to wrestle away the United States' de facto control over the Internet"

I really get irritated with the level of arrogance and sense of entitlement from certain parts of the planet.

Gee, none of these other countries complained when the United States government and various private enterprises in the U.S. were spending billions of dollars and man-hours for development of all the technologies, hardware, communication protocols and infrastructure to support the Internet, but now that it's up and running and they can piggyback off it, they want to argue about who should control it. It's under U.S. de facto control because the U.S. more or less brought the Internet into existence.

If any other country wants control, they can create their own Internet. Nothing is stopping them. There's no need to exert control over what exists now.

That is true. Plus now that we've pretty much figured out how to do it other countries would have to spend far less time and resources on it. Personally I think the US and the US companies responsible for developing much of the internet technology should reap the benefits from the investments they made.

Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Google.Nope, the US haven't reaped the benefits of the Internet, better give them more power.

I'm completely fine with that. But all Russia, China, Syria, and North Korea want to do is take the power away from the US. Why should we just lay down and take it. As a general rule more government control of anything is bad, even multiple collaborating governments.

Aint that cute that Russia/China/Saudi Arabia think they got a say. Normally I am on the complete opposite end of conservatives, but in the case of the UN, I am in agreement with them. The UN is a joke right now. And if China/Russia/Saudi Arabia want something done through the UN, I would do the opposite.

"Some want to wrestle away the United States' de facto control over the Internet"

I really get irritated with the level of arrogance and sense of entitlement from certain parts of the planet.

Gee, none of these other countries complained when the United States government and various private enterprises in the U.S. were spending billions of dollars and man-hours for development of all the technologies, hardware, communication protocols and infrastructure to support the Internet, but now that it's up and running and they can piggyback off it, they want to argue about who should control it. It's under U.S. de facto control because the U.S. more or less brought the Internet into existence.

If any other country wants control, they can create their own Internet. Nothing is stopping them. There's no need to exert control over what exists now.

That is true. Plus now that we've pretty much figured out how to do it other countries would have to spend far less time and resources on it. Personally I think the US and the US companies responsible for developing much of the internet technology should reap the benefits from the investments they made.

Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Google.Nope, the US haven't reaped the benefits of the Internet, better give them more power.

I'm completely fine with that. But all Russia, China, Syria, and North Korea want to do is take the power away from the US. Why should we just lay down and take it. As a general rule more government control of anything is bad, even multiple collaborating governments.

My take on this is that:1) Yaaay for the politicians with their free campaigning. Bonus brownie point for pointless bipartisanship. 2) American hegemony is neat but damn sure not worth the expense. Time to just fade into the crowd and make it harder to be scapegoated (not that we don't deserve it sometimes). 3) Want to block/tax U.S. companies for protectionist or rent-seeking reasons? Alright, I hope those companies are connected enough to make the country lose more than they made when it comes time to talk tariffs, diplomacy, etc..4) Want to express your nation's autonomy by spying on your own people? Frankly, go for it. I never did understand my own country's patronizing view of other peoples and our need to "spread freedom" or some such nonsense. One thing I think we can agree on is that they damn sure don't want our input on how to run their country. Leave them to it.

I think spent too much time loitering in a sister thread today, so I'm probably out.

The headline here is absolutely wrong. The U.S. House of Representatives passed this resolution. The U.S. House is ONE HALF of Congress. Congress as a whole hasn't expressed a position until the U.S. Senate votes as well. The Senate will presumably pass the resolution, but I don't know the position of the Democratic leadership of the Senate, so they might have some reason to prevent it from even coming up for a vote. Regardless, the headline is completely inaccurate.

Someone didn't read the entire article.

Quote:

The same resolution passed the Senate back in September, also by unanimous vote. (Even their European counterparts passed a similar resolution in November.)

The headline here is absolutely wrong. The U.S. House of Representatives passed this resolution. The U.S. House is ONE HALF of Congress. Congress as a whole hasn't expressed a position until the U.S. Senate votes as well. The Senate will presumably pass the resolution, but I don't know the position of the Democratic leadership of the Senate, so they might have some reason to prevent it from even coming up for a vote. Regardless, the headline is completely inaccurate.

Someone didn't read the entire article.

Quote:

The same resolution passed the Senate back in September, also by unanimous vote. (Even their European counterparts passed a similar resolution in November.)

You're right. I screwed up. As an ex-newspaper editor, I think the lede should have been written very differently because of that, but there's no denying that I was in error not to notice that detail at the end of the second graf.

If any other country wants control, they can create their own Internet. Nothing is stopping them. There's no need to exert control over what exists now.

What's the point then? The Internet is a public good, there is no competition involved(not the same thing as ISP). It's a utility, nobody in their right mind suggest we build another road network to compete with the existing one. It's ridiculous.

Public good? Utility? What makes you think other countries subscribe to that viewpoint?

Congress certainly can't agree on much, but we've now discovered what it will unite for:

Namely, symbolic gestures that further their chances of getting re-elected.

(That, and their own pay raises.)

Give 'em a break on the pay raises. If I could vote myself a pay raise, I know I sure would...

Foreseeing such a circumstance, the original Bill of Rights included a means to stop Congress from giving themselves pay-raises unilaterally. It wasn't included in the first Bill of Rights, and currently is our latest Constitutional Amendment, by some weird quirks of fate.

Wikipedia wrote:

The proposed amendment was ratified by Wyoming in 1978 as a protest to a Congressional pay raise, but the proposed amendment was largely forgotten before University of Texas at Austin undergraduate student Gregory Watson wrote a paper on the subject in 1982. Despite receiving a 'C' grade on his paper by an instructor who deemed his idea 'unrealistic', Watson started a new push for ratification with a letter-writing campaign to state legislatures.

The Constitution, Amendments to, 27th wrote:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

This means that Senators can raise their pay twice before having to stand for re-election, but Representatives have to stand for re-election each time.

In practice, the power of the incumbent effectively means they raise their own paychecks.

If any other country wants control, they can create their own Internet. Nothing is stopping them. There's no need to exert control over what exists now.

What's the point then? The Internet is a public good, there is no competition involved(not the same thing as ISP). It's a utility, nobody in their right mind suggest we build another road network to compete with the existing one. It's ridiculous.

Public good? Utility? What makes you think other countries subscribe to that viewpoint?

If any other country wants control, they can create their own Internet. Nothing is stopping them. There's no need to exert control over what exists now.

What's the point then? The Internet is a public good, there is no competition involved(not the same thing as ISP). It's a utility, nobody in their right mind suggest we build another road network to compete with the existing one. It's ridiculous.

Public good? Utility? What makes you think other countries subscribe to that viewpoint?

It's not a viewpoint, it's basic economics.

This. It's exactly like the roads, or the electricity distribution network. It makes no sense for a company to invest on it, because their competitors will use it. The only way to build it is with taxes.

Not sure where you got that from. I was in DC when that happened, and for a good 2 hours after the planes hit I was on the internet getting updates no problem before picking up and trying to head home. The major news sites were flooded because enough people were trying to check them to simulate a DoS attack, but forums, e-mail, etc. that wasn't impacted by all of America trying to access it at once worked just fine.

Not sure where you got that from. I was in DC when that happened, and for a good 2 hours after the planes hit I was on the internet getting updates no problem before picking up and trying to head home. The major news sites were flooded because enough people were trying to check them to simulate a DoS attack, but forums, e-mail, etc. that wasn't impacted by all of America trying to access it at once worked just fine.

I think he was being a little bit sarcastic, and forgot to close with a </sarcasm>

The FAA controls airplanes, not the Internet. As such, when referring to a "kill switch" enacted by the FAA during 9/11, he's probably talking about the impromptu and frantic efforts of air traffic controllers to ground all planes in the U.S. The grounding of thousands of planes, simultaneously, had never been planned.

Most likely an Internet cutoff switch would also rely upon the DoD or FAA calling up hundreds of ISPs and ordering them to shutoff service immediately, similar to how the FAA had to call up thousands of airplanes.

Unfortunately, some stupid Congress-critters did suggest an Internet cuttoff switch that was far less hodgepodge, capable of being activated with less than 5 minutes notice. Such a kill switch would be the prime hacking target of the world. I will note that the idiotic notion of an automatic Internet kill switch was separate from the idiotic notions of SOPA and PIPA.

You're right. I screwed up. As an ex-newspaper editor, I think the lede should have been written very differently because of that, but there's no denying that I was in error not to notice that detail at the end of the second graf.

If any other country wants control, they can create their own Internet. Nothing is stopping them. There's no need to exert control over what exists now.

What's the point then? The Internet is a public good, there is no competition involved(not the same thing as ISP). It's a utility, nobody in their right mind suggest we build another road network to compete with the existing one. It's ridiculous.

Public good? Utility? What makes you think other countries subscribe to that viewpoint?

Anyone who gives a shit what another country's viewpoint is can go to that country's official public relations website and read whatever their government would like you to think is their viewpoint. According to every single last member of both the US Senate and the US House of Representatives, i.e. "Congress", the official US "viewpoint" is that the US doesn't give a fuck what anybody else's opinion is on how the internet - a US invented and developed technology - is run. It's not odd at all that the opposition to this idea seems to be coming mostly from those regimes most interested in oppressing their own populace and censoring the free flow of information.Not all opinions are created equal or hold the same validity simply because they are all defined as "opinions". The same is true of political philosophies. Just because a country has it's own customs and government and "viewpoint" doesn't mean we all have to enthusiastically recognize their right to oppress their people. Either we stand up for what we believe in, freedom and democracy, as best serving the needs of all humans in every society and culture, or we continue to hypocritically accept the best trade relations we can negotiate in order to benefit from their slave labor.What we don't do is let them have a seat at the big boy table and decide how the internet that we invented to be redundantly capable of delivering the free flow of information even in the event of a nuclear attack should best be censored to prevent the evolution of those societies still under the heel of the oppression we claim to despise the most, whether that oppressor is the PRC, the Taliban, <insert the name of your favorite dictator here>, or Hollywood.The internet sabbath is Caturday. Keep it Holy and caption not ye cats with propaganda nor subject them to copyright trolls. This shall be the whole of the law.

I realize people are bitching that website that promote online piracy, but that censorship is nothing compared to many of the more restrictive countries. I've know a few students from China that didn't even know what happen at the Tiananmen Square Protests in 1989, that is real censorship of the internet.

Wow, equating the difference between knowing something and not knowing something to the existence of the internet is really rich. People knew about oppression and tragedy before the internet existed. It's called word of mouth. If you live in a country and don't know about the transgressions of its leaders, you have a much bigger problem than internet access.

Not sure where you got that from. I was in DC when that happened, and for a good 2 hours after the planes hit I was on the internet getting updates no problem before picking up and trying to head home. The major news sites were flooded because enough people were trying to check them to simulate a DoS attack, but forums, e-mail, etc. that wasn't impacted by all of America trying to access it at once worked just fine.

I was on an IRC channel when someone discovered & told those of us in it that robots.cnn.com worked

Wow, being on the same side of a vote as democrats that must have been incredibly difficult for congressional republicans. If I were President Obama I might have come out in opposition to WCIT-12 before the vote just to see what would happen.

And authoritarian states want to further legitimatize their already existing censorship and surveillance regimes.

Khakionion wrote:

Cyrus Farivar (Author) wrote:

In short, countries are free to impose essentially whatever policy they want on their own domestic Internet—and already they do with impunity. (As always, we’re looking at you, North Korea, China, Russia, Iran, and most recently, Syria.)

There was some other country that did that too...think it started with a "U" and ended in "nited States."

Cyrus, as noted by Khakionion, the US government is also guilty of censorship and surveillance imposed on their domestic Internet, and unless you want to argue that ACTA, SOPA, PIPA and the "Patriot Act" were accepted by public referendum and do not constitute censorship or surveillance... you should really amend the article to either include the US in the list, remove the reference to other countries, or even add an Op-Ed disclaimer.

I think most would agree that US policies are not always as aggressive as some other countries, but that doesn't mean they don't still constitute censorship and surveillance nonetheless. In short, censorship and surveillance is what it is, regardless of who does it or how openly they do it.

Also, let it be known that North Korea, China, Russia, Iran or Syria never traveled halfway across the planet to illegally kick in the door of someone's family home with assault rifles, just cause his website pissed off their local movie industry (though any oppressive nation would if it got the chance).

If China or even New Zealand did the same to someone living in the US, it wouldn't take long for the butthurt to start flowing and the idea that the suspect might be extradited to stand a show-trial and therefor jail-time in the accusing country, would be preposterous. But some people just can't see why something is wrong unless they're on the receiving end of it.

"Some want to wrestle away the United States' de facto control over the Internet"I really get irritated with the level of arrogance and sense of entitlement from certain parts of the planet.

Me too. I'm thinking of one country in particular.

Quote:

Gee, none of these other countries complained when the United States government and various private enterprises in the U.S. were spending billions of dollars and man-hours for development of all the technologies, hardware, communication protocols and infrastructure to support the Internet

Yeah, it's not like all those companies and such are actually getting PAID for their investments, through things like patent royalties and being hired to build infrastructure. Those companies made those investments out of the goodness of their hearts, and now other countries are just stealing all their stuff (obviously!). As a reward for all their hard work they should be granted political control over the organisation of communications worldwide. Democracy, you say? What's that?

Quote:

but now that it's up and running and they can piggyback off it, they want to argue about who should control it. It's under U.S. de facto control because the U.S. more or less brought the Internet into existence. If any other country wants control, they can create their own Internet. Nothing is stopping them. There's no need to exert control over what exists now.

What exactly do you think the internet is? Seriously, that quip made me think of the South Park episode "Over Logging" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over_Logging). The internet is a global system of IP networks, which has the properties it had as a consequence of all the different participants in the network agreeing to communicate in certain ways (e.g. the Internet Protocol Suite). It is not a giant Lynksys router in a room in California. If the U.S. does not want to cooperate with other participants in the network IT can have ITS own internet. There is nothing stopping it, other than the fact that that kind of isolationism tends not to end well (North Korea provides a useful object lesson here).

To my mind, I think that at least the U.N. represents me as a citizen to some extent (since my elected government appoints a representative there). As things stand the internet is under the control of massive global corporations, which might be registered in some particular country (probably Ireland, for tax reasons), but which owe no allegiance to any country, not even the U.S. of A.. Such corporations are only interested in getting as much of my money as possible, and have no interest in my wishes or my welfare. Giving them control over the internet is like giving the fox the keys to the hen-house.

Wow. According to several posts in this thread, I must be a "thief" and/or a "pirate" and/or a criminal because I happen to think there is something wrong with how the US government deals with a range of internet issues, whether it be persuading major banks and credit card companies not to deal with Wikileaks, or the treatment of Bradley Manning, or the illegal raid on Kim Dotcom in New Zealand.

Get over yourselves, and stop labeling people just because they disagree with you.

"Some want to wrestle away the United States' de facto control over the Internet"I really get irritated with the level of arrogance and sense of entitlement from certain parts of the planet.

Me too. I'm thinking of one country in particular.

Quote:

Gee, none of these other countries complained when the United States government and various private enterprises in the U.S. were spending billions of dollars and man-hours for development of all the technologies, hardware, communication protocols and infrastructure to support the Internet

Yeah, it's not like all those companies and such are actually getting PAID for their investments, through things like patent royalties and being hired to build infrastructure. Those companies made those investments out of the goodness of their hearts, and now other countries are just stealing all their stuff (obviously!). As a reward for all their hard work they should be granted political control over the organisation of communications worldwide. Democracy, you say? What's that?

Quote:

but now that it's up and running and they can piggyback off it, they want to argue about who should control it. It's under U.S. de facto control because the U.S. more or less brought the Internet into existence. If any other country wants control, they can create their own Internet. Nothing is stopping them. There's no need to exert control over what exists now.

What exactly do you think the internet is? Seriously, that quip made me think of the South Park episode "Over Logging" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over_Logging). The internet is a global system of IP networks, which has the properties it had as a consequence of all the different participants in the network agreeing to communicate in certain ways (e.g. the Internet Protocol Suite). It is not a giant Lynksys router in a room in California. If the U.S. does not want to cooperate with other participants in the network IT can have ITS own internet. There is nothing stopping it, other than the fact that that kind of isolationism tends not to end well (North Korea provides a useful object lesson here).

To my mind, I think that at least the U.N. represents me as a citizen to some extent (since my elected government appoints a representative there). As things stand the internet is under the control of massive global corporations, which might be registered in some particular country (probably Ireland, for tax reasons), but which owe no allegiance to any country, not even the U.S. of A.. Such corporations are only interested in getting as much of my money as possible, and have no interest in my wishes or my welfare. Giving them control over the internet is like giving the fox the keys to the hen-house.

Well, hell! time for a pointless car analogy! I suppose by your reckoning, ford should allow Daiwoo to build ecoboost engines for use in their shitbox cars using Ford's equioment, distribution network, and labor too!

Fuck your country, US interests invented and control the internet, it isn't up to every other second and thrid tier nation to decide they should give up thier property. Suck it.